Exactly WHEN in 1930 does "City on the Edge of Forever" take place?

[JonnyQuest037]

I have to say that if “Star Trek” history is a close match to ours, the earliest Clark Gable is a big movie star, Goodnight Sweetheart could be on the radio and Alnitak is going to be in the sky at a reasonable hour seems to be early in 1932!

I'd really love to just slide the episode forward in time slightly, so that we could find a month in the 30s that fits with all the data & clears up those anachronisms. Unfortunately, it's pretty definitely 1930, according to several lines Spock has in the episode.

Ellison's early concept for CotEoF included two storylines over two episodes, one of which happened on the pirate ship Condor, the ship that had taken the place of Enterprise in orbit in the timeline altered by Beckwith's (instead of McCoy's) interference. That has always seemed to me the source of the "Mirror Universe" idea.

I have the book with Ellison's original script and introduction, and nowhere does he mention that it was ever planned as a two-parter. What's your source on that?

And I doubt that the Condor subplot directly inspired "Mirror, Mirror." Other than the basic concept of an evil crew on the standing Enterprise sets, they don't really have much of anything in common. The Condor plot is pretty undeveloped in Ellison's script, as it was reportedly added at Roddenberry's demand that the ship be in danger in some fashion. And don't forget that "Mirror, Mirror" writer Jerome Bixby had already written several short stories about alternate universes.

 

[Albertese]

Regarding intimate relations between Kirk and Keeler: the end credits list Joan Collins' character as "Sister Edith Keeler" which for years made me assume she must be a nun. But she doesn't seem to be cloistered at all... and I'm not a catholic so I don't really know all the protocols for nunnery. But, she is doing charity work for a living and does wear a prominent crucifix, so I would assume she is at least very religious, and in the 1930s at that, certainly a more "old fashioned" time by both our own standards and Kirk's. I'm not saying it would be impossible for such a person to take up pre-marital sex, but I kinda doubt it. And while it's true that Kirk had casual liaisons from time to time, he was also a gentleman and was respectful of people. I'm sure he wouldn't pressure Edith into something she wasn't inclined to do. And, as mentioned above, the "taking it slow" could be part of the appeal for Kirk.

Not to mention the fact that they are trying to keep a low profile and not unduly effect the flow of history. Sex carries the risk of pregnancy and they were still 20 years too early for birth control pills. Though condoms were already a thing, would Kirk want to take the risk of adding a whole new human person into the mix? I think he's more responsible than that.

--Alex

 

[JonnyQuest037]

Excellent points, Alex. You're convinced me. Kirk's relationship with Edith was a chaste one.

It's also interesting that "go slow" was a part of Kirk's fatherly advice to Charlie Evans in "Charlie X":

KIRK: You go slow. You be gentle. I mean, it's not a one-way street, you know, how you feel and that's all. It's how the girl feels, too. Don't press, Charlie. If the girl feels anything for you at all, you'll know it. Do you understand?

 

[Kirk Prime]

Regarding Clark Gable--

I think it's fair to say that while Star Trek take place in a world with similar history to ours, it's not the exact same universe. After all, there was no TV show named Star Trek in the Star Trek universe.

Additionally, there was no world war in the 1990s. Khan didn't exist.

For that reason, I don't worry about Clark Gable being famous a few years earlier.

 

[Maurice]

Regarding intimate relations between Kirk and Keeler: the end credits list Joan Collins' character as "Sister Edith Keeler" which for years made me assume she must be a nun...

That's a common misperception of the use of "sister" in the episode. One of Ellison's influences for Keeler was "Sister Aimee" Semple McPherson (link), a Pentecostalist Christian evangelist and pioneering user of mass media via her radio broadcasts. One can easily imagine Keeler growing a movement which puts her on the radio Sister Aimee style which results in mobilizing masses in isolationist-leaning America to pressure the country to stay out of foreign entanglements until it's too late.

it should be noted that in Ellison's 1st draft script they are unsure of exactly how Keeler will change history, and that Spock merely hypothesizes that her influence could delay America's entry into the war to explain to Kirk just how one person living could affect history, which I rather like better.

As to the death of "Rodent", in Eilison's script much is made of the fact that some people are focal points in history and that others are not, so while the veteran "Trooper" matters to Kirk whose life he saves, he doesn't matter to the steamroller of history.

 

[ZapBrannigan]

But, she is doing charity work for a living and does wear a prominent crucifix, so I would assume she is at least very religious,

I'm seeing a big gold locket or pocket watch around her neck.

 

[UssGlenn]

It's shown that Edith has come up with the Federation philosophy too early, and we know that the Federation philosophy is secular. So it's not outside the realm of possibility that Edith runs a secular mission, and that's one of the things that makes it so unique for the time period.

 

[Poltargyst]

Regarding intimate relations between Kirk and Keeler: the end credits list Joan Collins' character as "Sister Edith Keeler" which for years made me assume she must be a nun. But she doesn't seem to be cloistered at all... and I'm not a catholic so I don't really know all the protocols for nunnery. But, she is doing charity work for a living and does wear a prominent crucifix, so I would assume she is at least very religious, and in the 1930s at that, certainly a more "old fashioned" time by both our own standards and Kirk's. I'm not saying it would be impossible for such a person to take up pre-marital sex, but I kinda doubt it. And while it's true that Kirk had casual liaisons from time to time, he was also a gentleman and was respectful of people. I'm sure he wouldn't pressure Edith into something she wasn't inclined to do. And, as mentioned above, the "taking it slow" could be part of the appeal for Kirk.

Not to mention the fact that they are trying to keep a low profile and not unduly effect the flow of history. Sex carries the risk of pregnancy and they were still 20 years too early for birth control pills. Though condoms were already a thing, would Kirk want to take the risk of adding a whole new human person into the mix? I think he's more responsible than that.

--Alex

If she was a Catholic nun, she wouldn't be dating Kirk at all.

 

[Push The Button]

If she was a Catholic nun, she wouldn't be dating Kirk at all.

A Catholic nun would also be wearing a wedding ring, I don't think that Edith had one.

 

[Poltargyst]

A Catholic nun would also be wearing a wedding ring, I don't think that Edith had one.

I'm not Catholic, I didn't realize nuns wore wedding rings. Because they're married to Christ?

 

[Tallguy]

It's shown that Edith has come up with the Federation philosophy too early, and we know that the Federation philosophy is secular. So it's not outside the realm of possibility that Edith runs a secular mission, and that's one of the things that makes it so unique for the time period.

"Our many beliefs" (Balance of Terror) seems to be the equivalent to "you can have any color you want as long as it's black."

 

[aridas sofia]

"Our many beliefs" (Balance of Terror) seems to be the equivalent to "you can have any color you want as long as it's black."

Any boater is free to use the lake. Though you can jump aboard any of those boats, you are not required to, and can decide to stay onshore watching them sail by.

 

[Push The Button]

I'm not Catholic, I didn't realize nuns wore wedding rings. Because they're married to Christ?

Something to that effect, yes.

 

[CRM-114]

Regarding Clark Gable--

I think it's fair to say that while Star Trek take place in a world with similar history to ours, it's not the exact same universe. After all, there was no TV show named Star Trek in the Star Trek universe.

Additionally, there was no world war in the 1990s. Khan didn't exist.

For that reason, I don't worry about Clark Gable being famous a few years earlier.

Let's not forget that this was still an era where an actor could be quite famous just for being on Broadway. It was a time when Broadway would still considered more prestigious than the movies.

 

[Nebusj]

Let's not forget that this was still an era where an actor could be quite famous just for being on Broadway. It was a time when Broadway would still considered more prestigious than the movies.

Yeah, but ... if the Internet Broadway Database is reliable, by 1930 in our timeline Gable had been in only three shows, per https://www.ibdb.com/broadway-cast-staff/clark-gable-67574

Although popular Broadway shows of the late 20s are one of my fields of ignorance, none of them seem particularly noteworthy. I don't know whether any would give Gable the chance to stand out.

If we really want to continue down this path, Wikipedia does say that before coming to New York, Gable earned renown with the Laskin Brothers Stock Company in Houston. I suppose we could say Keeler had lived in Texas in 1927 (who's to stop us?) although that doesn't say why she would suppose anyone else to think Gable a name worth noting.

In any case, something about the real world has to yield here. Keeler says she plans to go to a Clark Gable movie, and the only movie having Gable in even as an extra in 1930 was Du Barry, Woman of Passion. (Released in October, by the way, for what light that would shed on the 'when the episode takes place' debate.) All his other films were released before 1926 and it really strains plausibility they'd be showing four-year-old movies at the Orpheum.

If we have to do this, my preference is to suppose that Gable just got discovered by Hollywood a little earlier in Star Trek's timeline.

 

[Nebusj]

Spot of further research, by the way. If we substitute Richard Dix for Clark Gable and look up his filmography instead, then there's two candidate movies. One is Shooting Straight, released in July of 1930 and therefore right out. But Dix's other movie of 1930 was Lovin' the Ladies, a romantic comedy, released in New York City on ... March 21. And by RKO Pictures, so that it seems likely to play at the Orpheum in Brooklyn.

 

[Tallguy]

The point is that saying "Going to a Clark Gable movie" is meant to be instantly recognizable by anyone even vaguely living in that time and the fact that Kirk and McCoy don't know who they are is almost unbelievable to a "local".

AND that has to be a person who was STILL that famous in 1967. That's the tough part.

 

[CRM-114]

The point is that saying "Going to a Clark Gable movie" is meant to be instantly recognizable by anyone even vaguely living in that time and the fact that Kirk and McCoy don't know who they are is almost unbelievable to a "local".

AND that has to be a person who was STILL that famous in 1967. That's the tough part.

That really is what makes the most sense; go with the familiar if it fits the plot.

Beyond restoring the original timeline, the events of this episode really have no bearing on future episodes, so they could get away with fudging it a little. The producers weren't counting on these minute details being analyzed and scrutinized a half-century later.

 

[Kor]

I'm seeing a big gold locket or pocket watch around her neck.

Yes.
Here are some screencaps:
http://tos.trekcore.com/hd/thumbnails.php?album=29&page=14

http://tos.trekcore.com/hd/thumbnails.php?album=29&page=15

http://tos.trekcore.com/hd/thumbnails.php?album=29&page=18

Kor

 

[Nebusj]

The point is that saying "Going to a Clark Gable movie" is meant to be instantly recognizable by anyone even vaguely living in that time and the fact that Kirk and McCoy don't know who they are is almost unbelievable to a "local".

AND that has to be a person who was STILL that famous in 1967. That's the tough part.

I'm not sure being that famous is important. But it would have to be more recognizable than Richard Dix. And needs to be someone who's recognizable as a romantic lead. Maybe Ramon Navarro could have been used. Ronald Colman, perhaps. Might put in a bid for Douglas Fairbanks or Maurice Chevalier.